Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Bars Coverage for Pool Damage

February 23, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Relying upon the policy's anti-concurrent causation clause, the Illinois Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling that there was no coverage for a pool that popped out of the ground. Bozek v. Erie Ins. Group, 2015 Ill. App. LEXIS 940 (Ill. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2015). Following a rainstorm, the insureds reported damage to the swimming pool to Erie. An investigation determined that the heavy rain saturated soils around the pool. This created a significant uplift hydrostatic pressure. The weight of the water in the pool typically prevented the uplift forces, but the pool had been emptied to clean debris making it susceptible to uplift. The pool had a pressure relief valve to prevent uplift, but it was not working properly. As a result, the pool was damaged to the point that it had to be replaced in its entirety. The heaving of the pool also damaged the concrete slab around the pool, which also had to be replaced. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

CGL Coverage Dispute Regarding the (J)(6) And (J)(7) Property Damage Exclusions

April 18, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A new insurance coverage opinion dealing with a commercial general liability’s (CGL) duty to defend involved exclusions commonly known as the (j)(6) and (j)(7) property damage exclusions (and in certain policies known as the (j)(5) and (j)(6) exclusions). These are the exclusions that apply during ongoing operations. Exclusion (l), or the “your work” exclusion, applies post-completion, i.e., it is an exclusion for “property damage” to “your work” included in the “products-completed operations hazard.” Exclusions (j)(6) and (j)(7) in the policy at-issue exclude coverage for property damage to:

(j)(6) That particular part of real property on which any insured or any contractors or subcontractors working directly or indirectly on your behalf are performing operations, if the “property damage” arises out of those operations; (j)(7) That particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because “your work” was incorrectly performed on it.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Intricacies of Business Interruption Claim Considered

January 07, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Reaching into the weeds to analyze a business interruption claim, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals determined the cost of ordinary payroll could be included in the calculation of net profit or loss in determining business loss income when business is resumed quickly after a fire. Verrill Farms, LLC v. Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co., 2014 Mass. App. LEXIS 145 (Mass. App. Ct. Nov. 4, 2014). The insured suffered a fire loss at its farm store. Within two days, the business was reopened at alternate locations at reduced capacity. Within a month, the business had resumed nearly full capacity in temporary locations. No employees were laid off. This allowed the insured to maintain its business and generate income. The insured submitted a claim for loss of business income, based on its loss of net income in the year after the fire. The insurer paid a sum considerably less than the claim based upon its interpretation of what expenses could be included in a calculation of net profit or loss in order to determine loss of business income. The trial court held that the insurer did not have to pay the cost of ordinary payroll beyond the sixty-day limit, and granted summary judgment in the insurer's favor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Traub Lieberman Partners Lisa Rolle, Erin O’Dea, and Nicole Verzillo Win Motion for Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner

September 30, 2024 — Lisa M. Rolle, Erin O’Dea, Nicole Verzillo - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partners Lisa Rolle, Erin O’Dea, and Nicole Verzillo won motion for summary judgment in a premises liability matter brought before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County. The Plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell in a pothole on the common driveway of five abutting properties and sustained an injury. The firm represented one of the multiple property owners. Traub Lieberman moved for summary judgment, asserting that the claims against the firm’s client should be dismissed as they did not own, operate, control or make special use of the driveway where the incident occurred. The firm also asserted that the alleged condition of the driveway that allegedly caused Plaintiff’s accident was a non-actionable, trivial defect. The firm also moved to dismiss the cross-claims asserted against them, contending that there was no evidence of negligence on behalf of the firm’s client. As such, the court found that the defect was a non-actionable, trivial defect. The firm secured dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against the firm’s clients and against all moving and non-moving Defendants. Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman, Erin O’Dea, Traub Lieberman and Nicole Verzillo, Traub Lieberman Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Ms. O'Dea may be contacted at eodea@tlsslaw.com Ms. Verzillo may be contacted at nverzillo@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Travelers Insurance Sues Chicago for $26M in Damages to Willis Tower

May 15, 2023 — Annemarie Mannion - Engineering News-Record
Travelers Property Casualty Co. is suing the City of Chicago and its water district for $26 million in damages caused when more than 1 million gallons of Chicago River water flooded into a 110-story skyscraper during a 2020 storm. Reprinted courtesy of Annemarie Mannion, Engineering News-Record Ms. Mannion may be contacted at manniona@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Wisconsin Court Enforces Breach of Contract Exclusion in E&O Policy

July 21, 2018 — TLSS Insurance Law Blog
In its recent decision in Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co. v. GHD Inc.,2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111827 (E.D. Wisc. July 5, 2018), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin had occasion to consider the application of a breach of contract exclusion in a professional liability policy. Crum’s insured, DVO, was sued in connection with its contract to construct a biogas converter mechanism. The underlying suit alleged a sole cause of action; namely, breach of contract based on DVO’s failure to have fulfilled its obligations to design the mechanism to specification. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP

Keeping KeyArena's Landmark Lid Overhead at Climate Pledge Arena Redevelopment Is A 22,000-Ton Balancing Act

November 30, 2020 — Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-Record
Most contractors would jump at the chance to have a roof overhead during a major rebuild. But for the team turning earthquake-prone Seattle’s 411,000-sq-ft KeyArena into the 932,000-sq-ft Climate Pledge Arena, the city-owned facility’s historic helmet has been a 44-million-lb design and construction headache. Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Consider Manner In Which Loan Agreement (Promissory Note) Is Drafted

March 02, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Consider who you loan money too and, perhaps more importantly, the manner in which your loan agreements (promissory notes) are drafted. By way of example, in what appears to be a failed construction project in Conrad FLB Management, LLC v. Diamond Blue International, Inc., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2897a (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), a group of lenders lent money to a limited liability company (“Company”) in connection with the development of a project. Promissory notes were executed by Company and executed by its managing member as a representative of Company, and not in a personal capacity. Company, however, did not own the project. Rather, an affiliated entity owned the project (“Affiliated Entity”). Affiliated Entity had the same managing member as Company. Once the Company received the loan proceeds, it transferred the money to Affiliated Entity, presumably for purposes of the project. The loans were not repaid and the lenders sued Company, Affiliated Entity, and its managing member, in a personal capacity. The lenders claimed they were all jointly liable under the promissory notes. Although the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the lenders, this was reversed on appeal as to the Affiliated Entity and the managing member because there was a factual issue as to whether they should be bound by the note executed on behalf of Company. First, Florida Statute s. 673.4011(1) provides that “a person is not liable on a promissory note unless either (a) the person signed the note, or (b) the person is represented by an agent who signed the note.” Conrad FLB Management, LLC, supra. Affiliated Entity is a separate entity and did not execute the note. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES